Ruling on Illegal California Furloughs of DDS Employees
Author: Social Security Administration
Published: 2010/01/04 - Updated: 2026/05/15
Publication Type: Announcement
Category Topic: Laws and Rights - Related Publications
Contents: Synopsis - Introduction - Main - Insights, Updates
Synopsis: This announcement reports on two California Superior Court decisions in which Judge Frank Roesch ruled that the state's furloughing of Disability Determination Service (DDS) employees was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful, since those positions are funded entirely by the Social Security Administration rather than state revenue. Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue confirmed that each furlough day cost California $849,000 in administrative funding and delayed more than $420,000 in benefits owed to disabled residents, while saving the state nothing because federal DDS funds cannot be redirected. The information carries weight because it draws on official figures released by the Social Security Administration and direct quotations from the court ruling, making it a useful reference for disability advocates, seniors, civil servants, and people awaiting Social Security disability determinations who want to understand how state budget actions can affect federally funded benefit processing - Disabled World (DW).
- Topic Definition: California DDS Furloughs
A California DDS furlough refers to a mandatory unpaid day off imposed by the state government on employees of the Disability Determination Service, the agency that evaluates medical eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income claims in California. Although DDS salaries and overhead are paid in full by the Social Security Administration through federal funds that cannot be repurposed, state-imposed furloughs still halted casework on those days, producing measurable delays in disability decisions and in the release of benefits to qualifying residents. The 2009 furloughs under Governor Schwarzenegger were challenged in court and found by the Alameda County Superior Court to be an arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful exercise of executive discretion.
Introduction
Ruling on Illegal Furloughs in California
Social Security Administration Praises Court Ruling on "Illegal" Furloughs in California - Asks Governor Schwarzenegger to Accept Ruling and Congress to Increase Oversight
Main Content
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, issued the following statement regarding two recent decisions of the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda:
When it comes to the furlough of state employees whose jobs are paid for by federal funds, California Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled state officials have 'abused their discretion' and that 'such a policy is arbitrary, capricious and unlawful.' I could not agree more.
For more than a year, I have made the case that these furloughs cost states money, hurt their most vulnerable citizens, and harm hard-working civil servants.
California's furlough of Disability Determination Service (DDS) employees costs the state $849,000 per furlough day in administrative funding.
More importantly, each furlough day results in a delay costing California's disabled citizens over $420,000 in much-needed Social Security benefits.
For the sake of the citizens of California, I call on Governor Schwarzenegger to reject his own failed policy and not appeal the court's ruling.
Social Security funds 100 percent of DDS employees' salaries as well as all overhead costs - about $2 billion nationwide this year.
These funds cannot be used by the states for any other purpose, so states do not save a single penny by furloughing employees in the DDSs - they only slow getting benefits to the disabled, unduly harm its civil servants, and cost the state needed tax revenue. Nevertheless, about a dozen governors are imposing similar across-the-board hiring freezes or furloughs that also affect DDS employees.
I sincerely hope Congress will use its oversight authority to investigate not just California, but the other states that are using - or have used - furloughs and hiring freezes for positions that are fully funded by the Social Security Administration and other federal agencies.
Insights, Analysis, and Developments
Editorial Note: The lasting takeaway from this ruling is a practical one for anyone who depends on, or works within, the disability benefits system: when state policy collides with federally funded programs, the people who pay the price are usually those least able to absorb the delay. The Alameda County decision served as an early reminder that administrative shortcuts at the state level can carry real human costs, slowing claim reviews, lengthening waits for medical determinations, and straining the household finances of disabled applicants who have already been told to wait. More than a decade on, the case remains a useful touchstone whenever budget pressures tempt policymakers to treat federally funded staff as a line item rather than a lifeline - Disabled World (DW).Attribution/Source(s): This quality-reviewed publication was selected for publishing by the editors of Disabled World (DW) due to its relevance to the disability community. Originally authored by Social Security Administration and published on 2010/01/04, this content may have been edited for style, clarity, or brevity.